Starting immediately users who do not comply with Rule #2 and have their actual name as their Display Name will be banned. Please go to your User Control Panel and edit your user name to be the name your mama gave you. It is simple to do and will save you a lot of hassle.

So...begging the question here...IF an LEO were to stop a vehicle for, say, something like a tail light that was not working...would it be legal if that LEO were to inquire about that party's immigration status? If so...when?

I know...if the purpose of the stop was to check legal immigrant status, it isn't...but we all know that LEO's are certainly entitled to use their own discretion...just curious about how far the interrogation at the scene of the stop can extend. Perhaps there ought to be a specific sequence in the procedural protocol that requires some sort of LEO issued citation or written warning to prove the stop was not predicated on the color of the inhabitants' skin???

Cheers!

Doug

Doug, The whole thing slanted towards allowing illegal immigration. If Mexicans are coming in illegally, of coarse there will be profiling, you're looking for Mexicans. That's like saying I want you to build a GT40. Here's the kit, engine and transaxel. There's some provisions, you can't use tools, one hand, and stand on one leg. And that's probably easier than stopping illegal immigration.

Yes, he's a hero to white supremacists, Nazis, and xenophobes. If that's the crowd you run with, I guess that is the crowd you run with.

He's also a man who flagrantly violates and ignores the Constitution. As determined by a federal court judge (makes the inevitable chorus of "whatabout" Obama or Hillary the irrelevant sidetrack it is).

So, I guess we should wait till the illegals get benefits and settle, then we try to deport them at great cost without infringing on some kind of right. Makes much more sense than stopping them at the border. You guys have this expansion of the electorate down to a science.

That's really all it boils down to for you, right? That Faux News has you convinced illegals are here stealing your taxes in the way of benefits and voting?

That's got exactly ZERO to do with what this is about. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court saying it is against the law to racially profile.

For you, that's crazy and against "common sense" - when brown people are the target.

When the target is white people -- tax fraud, participation in Altright violent protests, etc. -- you scream bloody murder.

So...begging the question here...IF an LEO were to stop a vehicle for, say, something like a tail light that was not working...would it be legal if that LEO were to inquire about that party's immigration status? If so...when?

I know...if the purpose of the stop was to check legal immigrant status, it isn't...but we all know that LEO's are certainly entitled to use their own discretion...just curious about how far the interrogation at the scene of the stop can extend. Perhaps there ought to be a specific sequence in the procedural protocol that requires some sort of LEO issued citation or written warning to prove the stop was not predicated on the color of the inhabitants' skin???

Cheers!

Doug

This has been hashed out in the Courts for years before people like Arapio made it about brown folks.

Basically a police officer has to have a reasonable suspicion you have done something illegal in order to do what is a called a "Terry" stop and frisk. That means you have to look like you are up to something basically. However, the "looking like you are up to something" can't be based on race or other inherent characteristics.

For a police officer to conduct a legal search, he needs to have probable cause. Many ways to get there. Consent. A warrant. Or finding something during a Terry stop and frisk that leads him to have reason to believe a crime is being committed.

To answer your question, yes, if a police officer has reasonable suspicion NOT based on race or national origin to stop someone and ask for ID/frisk them, then he can also ask for their citizenship papers. But the initial stop can't be based on race/national origin.

Common sense tells us that's too easy to abuse, and can be a pretext for routinely stopping law abiding citizens who are doing nothing wrong and harassing them. Basically like what Joe Arapio did, in violation of a federal court order.

IMHO "illegal" (I prefer "undocumented") immigrants should NOT get governmental benefits...until they gain American citizenship!!! Once they become citizens, then they get to enjoy the rights/benefits to which all U. S. CITIZENS are entitled.

I bet most of them would swim back across the Rio Grande if they found out only U. S. citizens are entitled to governmental monetary benefits...and IMHO food stamps are one of those benefits.

Cheers!!

Doug

Of coarse you prefer undocumented immigrants. But they are law breaking illegal aliens. When they cross our border they are breaking the law. Any other country would put them in jail. As Mexico would do to us if we illegally stayed in Mexico. Our tax burden for illegals is substantial, for jail, etc. I went to a heart hospital a couple of years ago with chest pain (it was a pulled chest muscle from working out.) It cost me $1500 for 3 hours of tests. I asked the nurse why it was so much, she said they do a lot of free care for illegal aliens, and they also lose $2 to $3 million a year. Needless to say they are no longer open. It was a great Heart hospital too.

If Mexicans are coming in illegally, of coarse there will be profiling, you're looking for Mexicans.

I'm under the impression that since the economy of Mexico has substantially improved over the years, the net migration of illegal or undocumented Mexican aliens is actually negative. The net positive illegal or undocumented migration into the US is mostly from Central America where the economy is awful.

"Sheriff Joe" is a criminal and admitted his guilt by accepting the pardon. He was extremely fortunate that he had a "get of jail free" card, because he should have served his sentence just like everyone else. It is what is.

[QUOTE=Al Wohlstrom;512834]Of coarse you prefer undocumented immigrants. But they are law breaking illegal aliens. When they cross our border they are breaking the law. Any other country would put them in jail. As Mexico would do to us if we illegally stayed in Mexico. Our tax burden for illegals is substantial, for jail, etc.[QUOTE]

The term "aliens" just elicits visions of creatures from "Men in Black" and Star Trek, that's all. It is just that "immigrants" is a more accurate depiction of the reality.

Does it insult you that I do not refer to them in derogatory terms, Al? Keep in mind that we are pretty much in the same camp on this one...for years I have been decrying the fact that we are being invaded from the south, the only difference between the two of us is that you are decrying the immense cost of providing free medical care, while I have been decrying the immense cost of providing free Special Education services (BTW...SO glad your ticker didn't give out on you!!!).

What I have not endorsed is any form of discrimination that would be illegal...it's pretty certain Ol' Joe did a LOT of illegal stuff. Just b/c Trump says it's OK doesn't make it so, Al. He's entitled to pardon anyone he wants...but ya gotta wonder what Trump figures to gain for HIMSELF (you do have to admit, he's all about himself ) by pardoning a high profile/controversial criminal like Joe.

I swear!!! Some OTHER people's children!!!

Cheers!

Doug

__________________
YD,E./PNB
Alís RIGHT...Buy American!!!
Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[quote=YerDugliness;512838][QUOTE=Al Wohlstrom;512834]Of coarse you prefer undocumented immigrants. But they are law breaking illegal aliens. When they cross our border they are breaking the law. Any other country would put them in jail. As Mexico would do to us if we illegally stayed in Mexico. Our tax burden for illegals is substantial, for jail, etc.

Quote:

The term "aliens" just elicits visions of creatures from "Men in Black" and Star Trek, that's all. It is just that "immigrants" is a more accurate depiction of the reality.

Does it insult you that I do not refer to them in derogatory terms, Al? Keep in mind that we are pretty much in the same camp on this one...for years I have been decrying the fact that we are being invaded from the south, the only difference between the two of us is that you are decrying the immense cost of providing free medical care, while I have been decrying the immense cost of providing free Special Education services (BTW...SO glad your ticker didn't give out on you!!!).

What I have not endorsed is any form of discrimination that would be illegal...it's pretty certain Ol' Joe did a LOT of illegal stuff. Just b/c Trump says it's OK doesn't make it so, Al. He's entitled to pardon anyone he wants...but ya gotta wonder what Trump figures to gain for HIMSELF (you do have to admit, he's all about himself ) by pardoning a high profile/controversial criminal like Joe.

I swear!!! Some OTHER people's children!!!

Cheers!

Doug

Doug, Illegal Immigrants OK? They are illegally entering the United States of America, it's a crime, with a penalty, which by all the hoops and BS imposed by tree huggers make it impossible to enforce. While I feel bad for the people, we cannot be responsible for everyone in the world. There are charities you can donate to if you feel the need to.They can't be here illegally. If they are, they are criminals as bad as Joe. They are broken State and Federal Law. About 20,000.000 so far and they do cause a tax dollar impact.

If Mr. Arpaio would have started a sex change procedure, would the forgiveness of his misdemeanor conviction been more acceptable? How about massive "donations" to the Democratic National Committee and elsewhere (Clinton library)? It must be OK to defy a federal judge of you are a Clinton supporter but not one for Trump. It certainly worked for fugitive fancier Marc Rich. But then he was a serial tax evader and arms smuggler with connections in all the the right places. An interesting and somewhat amusing recounting of the tawdry tale of his presidential pardon can found here:

Perhaps Mr. Trump was sleep deprived when he approved the pardon. Mr. Clinton claimed to have been “sleep deprived” when he signed the aforementioned pardon for the late Mr. Rich. Interestingly, an excuse that most recent presidential candidate Clinton would resurrect to explain the tall tale of her landing under sniper fire in Bosnia". Heck, it was posted earlier that that's also why Mr. Obama thought there were 57 states.
Those folks must need more rest.

I also find the evolution of name calling here to be quite interesting. The term "illegal alien" is criticized but linking other form members to terms such as "white supremacists, Nazis, and xenophobes" goes with little mention.
In that regard, I would only invite a recollection of the success Mrs. Clinton had with the "basket of deplorables" school of influencing strategies. I suspect it fares no better here, at least with me anyway.

It appears to me that the Paddock tends to go south (and anything in the south reeks with racism, white supremacy, fascism etc. and is very, very bad) when the, comments, arguments, and ideas are no longer attacked but the participants personally are.

Here you go Doug. This cost every man, women, and child here in the US legally $312.50 each year. Think we could fix a few roads and dangerous bridges with this money? Still feel warm and fuzzy? Think we might use this money to help our Medicare, Social Security or Veterans? Or US citizen that need help. Or inner cities that are going to hell? You could do one hell of a lot with $100,000,000,000 for people here legally.

The term "aliens" just elicits visions of creatures from "Men in Black" and Star Trek, that's all. It is just that "immigrants" is a more accurate depiction of the reality.

"Reality", Doug, is that trueimmigrants follow our immigration laws. They knock on our door, ask permission to enter, fill out all the paperwork, and behave like guests. ILLEGAL ALIENS, OTOH, 'check in' with nobody. They simply walk in here like they own the place (and, sadly, these days they pretty much DO), behave as they please and start reaping every 'bennie' they can at taxpayer expense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YerDugliness

Does it insult you that I do not refer to them in derogatory terms, Al?

Please. That's just another lefty 'talking point' derived from pure 'p.c.'-based lefty spin, Doug. That so-called "derogatory term" is 100% accurate and you know it whether you'll admit it or not. They enter our country illegally and they ARE "aliens" since their home is elsewhere. Therefore, they are "illegal aliens"...or, if you prefer, at a bare minimum they are illegal immigrants. Six of one, 'half dozen of the other. But they are definitely not - NOT - "immigrants". No amount of lefty spin or 'relabeling' changes that...'hard as some may try.

Al, Pat and Larry, you're preaching to the choir here. I am NOT a proponent of undocumented "intrusion" into America and have been saying so for years. What I have not been able to grasp is a way to stop the illegal movement into our country. It is not just walking across bridges---I was on a kayaking trip near Terlingua, TX once and there was a guy with a jon-boat ferrying people from Mexico over to the U.S. side...they probably had jobs. I watched one individual load his motorcycle into that jon-boat before he was ferried across to the U.S. side of the Rio Grande. This was INSIDE the city limits of Terlingua and there was no effort to stop the practice, it had been going on for so long that the authorities in the U.S. just seemed to turn a blind eye to the practice. I was abhorred...but there it was, plain as day, happening right under the noses of everyone in Terlingua.

Yes, they are here illegally...anyone who has not followed the immigration procedure used by our government is. At this point, though, I don't sense a lot of support for sending them back...the illegal immigrants seem to work jobs that most Americans do not want to work, and I lived in TX for over 30 years so I had the chance to see how hard they really do work...not that I believe they are entitled to work unless they have a green card. But they are such an important part of the work force for TX that I didn't see much interest in sending the undocumented immigrants back to Mexico, except those who were deported due to illegal activities. Whose fault is that?

Ours.

As long as we're talking about immigration control, let's talk about Trump's "Wall". I don't think it will be effective...they'll find a way to get over, under or through the wall. What I would prefer to see is the money spent on a huge increase in border patrol agents. That would employ Americans and provide better border control, which IMHO would be a "win-win" situation.

Mexico isn't going to pay for it...accept that fact, guys...not even "later" as some have suggested. Trump's going to spend all that $$$$$$$$$ on a wall that won't be effective. Why not search for a better option?

Cheers!

Doug

__________________
YD,E./PNB
Alís RIGHT...Buy American!!!
Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.